L - Limited Atonement (Five Points of Calvinism, Part 3)

Well, it's time for another post in my series on the TULIP, aka the five points of Calvinism. Today we are looking at the middle petal of the TULIP - the "L" for "limited atonement." This has been one of the most hotly debated of the five points and the one where many who like the Calvinist system punt, and say they can't go there. If you ever hear of a "four point Calvinist" then this is probably where they have ceased to be on board. In my mind, this is a place where the debates have generated more heat than light. It's one of the places where both sides have dug in very hard and it's a hill that both sides have chosen to die on.

While I won't presume to be able to put forth a position that will be satisfying to all parties, I do hope to express a few things that will be helpful in defining the issues.

The doctrine of "limited atonement" speaks of the extent of the atonement, it is the Calvinistic answer to the question "for whom did Christ die." Calvinists assert that the extent of the atonement is "limited" to the elect, hence the name. Christ died for the elect in particular, not everyone in general. However, this is not the final word on this matter as we shall see in a moment.

Before proceeding, let me say that the very word "limited" is an unfortunate word to use when speaking of God or something He has done. God is the "omni-" God, so to speak of a work of His as "limited" seems to somehow denigrate HIs power. Also, knowing that "God is love," to speak of the atoning sacrifice of Christ as being "limited" seems to do violence to His nature as "all-loving." For this reason, I am in agreement with those theologians who prefer to use the term "particular redemption," when speaking of the extent of the atonement. I know that this phrase won't solve all of the problems, but at least it narrows the focus of what we are talking about. It asserts that God had a particular purpose related to a particular people, in His plan of redemption.

However, though we may quibble about which terms to use, it is the concept that is at issue. The concept at issue goes back to our question, "for whom did Christ die?"

In answering that, the first thing I would point out is that death of Christ was prefigured in, and is the fulfilment of, the Old Testament sacrificial system. The atonement of Christ is prefigured in the Old Testament in the Passover, the Day of Atonement, and the entire sacrificial system. Point number one in the argument for "limited atonement," or "particular redemption," is simply to note that all of these things - Passover, Day of Atonement, sacrificial system - were intended for the people of Israel, not for everyone in the world. True, the foreigner could have his sins atoned for, but he had to become a member of the people of Israel to do so. God never intended to provide a sacrifice for sins for those outside of the people of Israel.

When we come to the New Testament, the kinds of passages that Calvinists assert in defense of this doctrine are the ones that speak of Christ dying for the sins of "His people." For example:

Matthew 1:21: She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

These verses all speak of the redemption accomplished by Christ and show it's limited nature. He will save "His people," from their sins, not all people. He gave His life as a ransom for "many," not all. Christ gave Himself up for the church, not for all men. I would be so bold as to suggest that there is a verse which is often used as an argument against this view, which actually supports the view. That verse is John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

The word "that" in the middle of the verse speaks of purpose and it connects the giving of God's one and only Son with that which follows. The "giving" is clearly the giving of Christ in all of His work of redemption. The purpose of it is to secure eternal life for those who believe, not everyone. Based on considerations like this, the Calvinist argues that God had a specific purpose in mind with the atonement. It was an "actual" atonement, not merely a "potential" atonement. It "actually" atoned for the sins of God's people, it didn't merely make possible the atonement of sins for all people.

At this point it is helpful to point out the very narrow point that is being made here. The Calvinist simply asserts that the purpose of the death of Christ on the cross was to secure the salvation of His children. If I were to argue against myself I would go back to my prior arguments about the Old Testament types of the atonement of Christ, where I mentioned that these were given only to the people of Israel. I would argue against my position by saying "yes, but anyone from a foreign nation could become a member of the people of Israel, therefore even those things provided a potential atonement for all." To that I would say that my opponent has switched the point of argument. My opponent has in fact, agreed with me about the extent of the atonement - he has agreed that it is only for the people of Israel - he is now arguing about how one becomes a member of the nation of Israel. How one becomes a member of the nation of Israel is a very different argument than the one about the extent of the atonement.

Similarly, often when people want to argue about the extent of the atonement, they are often proffering arguments against something else, like "unconditional election," or "irresistible grace." Or, they may be arguing about the nature of God's love and mercy. The person who thinks that Christ died equally for everyone based on John 3:16 is not so much arguing the extent of the atonement as they are arguing the extent of God's love. They argue that since God loves the world, the death of Christ must be intended for everone in the world. But the one doesn't follow from the other. When speaking of God's love, we can distinguish between God's benevolent love for all mankind, and His redemptive love for His own children. When explaining this, I often tell people that I may love your child, but I will never love your child the way I love my child.

In the same way it is proper to distinguish between God's love for all men and His love for His children. As a side note, I have often found myself at odds with fellow Calvinists about this. I am happy to affirm that God loves everyone in the world, based on John 3:16. I've heard pretty whacky attempts to make that verse out to mean something to the effect that the "world" in John 3:16 is only the "world of the elect," or something like that. These folks are very adamant in their assertion that God cannot love the entire world, and there favorite verse is "Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated." They take that very literally to mean that God hates all of the non-elect. In such cases I turn to Luke 14:26:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters yes, even his own life he cannot be my disciple. The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

After reading that, I'll ask them if they take that passage as literally as "Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated," and if they believe they have a biblical obligation to hate their parents. Of course not they say, of course we are supposed to love our parents, Luke 14:26 just speaks of the comparison of our love for our parents with to our love for God. Our love for God should be so great that our love for our parents pales in comparison. So why not understand the difference between the elect and non-elect in that way? God can still love the non-elect, even if the death of Christ did not atone for their sins.

Having said all of that, there are several passages that are regularly used against this view:

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

I John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

These passages are pretty clear that Jesus died for the whole world, so that pretty much shoots the case of the Calvinist, right? Ah, we Calvinists aren't going to back down quite so easily. The standard Calvinistic exegesis of these passages is to say that these show that the atonement is not limited to one ethnic group or national group. The rationale behind this is to view such passages through a Jewish, Old Testament lens. The Jews thought that salvation was only for the Jews, and one could not be saved without being a Jews. The New Testament is expanding this so that one can be saved without being a Jew. In fact, salvation is available to all kinds of people every where. But, in saying that Christ died for all kinds of people, this does not mean that He died for every single individual in the world.

I think this exegesis has a bit of merit to it, but I don't think it is the final answer on it. While the opponents of Calvinism often misunderstand us, it is also true that the proponents of Calvinism are often so eager to protect the system that we shape certain passages to fit the system, rather than letting the passages shape the system. So, while I think the "Christ died for all kinds of people" exegesis has some merit, there is a better way to address such passages. Rather than turn this into a debate between "Christ died for every individual" vs "Christ died for all kinds of people," let's look at the words of Charles Hodge, who gives us the better way of addressing the issue. If you aren't familiar with Hodge, he's one of the Old Princeton theologians of the 19th century, back when Princeton was the leading Calvinistic institution in America, and probably the world. He says this:

The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ?s coming into the world, and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i. e., of those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by Augustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind. But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died "suffcienter proomnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electi?" sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object? Hodge, C. 1997. Systematic theology. Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA

I offer this quote as a kind of olive branch to those loathe the "limited atonement view," and as a corrective to some of the more "hyper" Calvinists. Notice, in particular that Hodge says:

But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels.

Hodge basically seeks to answer the question of how did Christ's atonement relate to the elect, and how does it relate to fallen man? He says that the death of Christ becomes the ground on which salvation is offered to all men, and it secures innumberable blessings to all men. So, the Calvinist can affirm that everyone benefits from the death of Christ, but not everyone is saved by the death of Christ. Most non-Calvinistic evangelicals would agree with this. Except for those like Clark Pinnock and others who are into the "Openness of God" movement, all evangelicals are opposed to universalism. I don't know of anyone who wants to say that Christ died equally for all men. Christians believe that the atonement secures eternal life for them, would we say that it secures eternal life for unbelievers too? I don't know of any evangelicals who would say this, thus there is a sense in which everyone would agree that the atonement has a "limited" or "particular" focus, even if they don't buy the whole Calvinistic understanding.

So, there's my take on "limited atonement," let the flying of the fur begin.

I'm not going to let my fur fly just yet. As I read it, an Egyptian didn't have to become an Israelite to save his child from the passing over by the Angel of the Lord. He only had to slay the specified lamb and mark his doorposts and lintel with its blood. For subsequent generations and the keeping of the Passover, then sure, the person had to become part of the nation of Israel. The first Passover was the actuality and the following Passovers followed its pattern. Ironic in that all Passovers were a pattern of the true Passover of later years. Nevermind, I’m off topic already.

Well done. Very clear post. Another helpful point, I think, is this: Christ didn't die for sin in a general fuzzy sort of way. He died for sins. Many, many sins. But each one was atoned for, that is, it had its specific penalty paid for. It was my sins that were put upon Him, not my sinfulness. So then one must ask, if Christ paid the penalty for each of an unsaved person's sins, why is God just to make that person pay for them again? Did Christ suffer in a vain, useless way for this person? Why, with His infinite wisdom, would He do a vain thing?

Two verses which I didn't see you address in this post, which I'd like to see addressed because they're rather difficult for me at the moment, are Matthew 18:14 and 2 Peter 3:9:

"So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." - Matthew 18:14

"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." - 2 Peter 3:9

It's clear that God does not want anyone to perish. Yet it's equally clear that those who refuse to repent will, indeed, perish. How can this be? How can God want for something to happen, yet it will not? Is it that God is incapable of making it happen? Surely not! If Christ's death was effective atonement for your sins and mine, then why could it not also be effective atonement for Joe Sinner over there, except that Joe refuses to repent?

I cannot get away from the position that while we cannot accept salvation on our own, we can reject it on our own. (That is, God's grace enables us to accept salvation, but it takes no special action of God for us to reject salvation; we can do that entirely on our own). If we say that Christ's death could save some but not others (that it was limited not just in actual effect, but also in potential), then we fly in the face of verses like 1 John 2:2. On the other hand, if we say that Christ's death will be effective salvation for all people in every age, then we veer into universalism and completely ignore vast swaths of the Bible that state very clearly that some will, indeed, perish.

The problem comes when I ask "Why, then, will some perish?" If it is only because God did not choose them for salvation, I come back and ask why He didn't. After all, He's said that He does not desire that anyone should perish! And if all it took was for Him to say, "Okay, then, I'll count Jesus' death as having atoned for Joe's sins as well," then why didn't He? And the only answer that I can come up with is: that Joe refuses to repent. God offers salvation to all, but He will not force it on any; if Joe refuses to repent, God says, "Very well, I grant you the consequences of your choice."

As I mentioned, I can't get away from this position. I'd love to be a universalist, if only the Bible wasn't so exceedingly clear that some will perish. But to say that who will perish and who will be saved is entirely up to an arbitrary decision on God's part -- that he chooses to apply Jesus' atoning sacrifice to some but not to others on no other grounds than "I think I'll pick this one" -- leads right in to the "cosmic child abuse" argument that many have advanced against the Gospel. It doesn't make sense to me either, based on verses like 2 Peter 3:9.

Could you please address this? What are the weaknesses of this position -- "We cannot be saved on our own, but we can reject salvation on our own"? How does this fit in with irresistible grace? I keep hoping that I'll see how it fits in (or doesn't) with Calvinism, but so far I haven't gotten it. Help!

"if Christ paid the penalty for each of an unsaved person's sins, why is God just to make that person pay for them again?"

Jesus paid for the sins of all, but that by itself is not enough to get into heaven. If our sins had not been atoned for, God would by justified in slaying on the spot, as he did to Sodom. To be saved we must also drink his blood and eat his flesh.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53)

That teaching was of course very difficult, but it needs to be fully understood. To me it means that our sinful spirit must accept that it remains alive only through the painful death of Christ on the cross, just as our bodies live on the killing of plants and animals.

I just finished reading the part of Calvin were he beautifully describes the geniune fear that Jesus went through as he prepared for the crucifixion. By raising up our fears through him to God, we can be assured of our own salvation.

Jon wrote: "Jesus paid for the sins of all, but that by itself is not enough to get into heaven."

Those who suffer in hell for eternity do so as just punishment for their sins. If their sins are paid for then it does not make sense that they will pay for them again. If we have to do something to make Jesus' payment apply to us, then Jesus secured the salvation of no one, but only made it possible, and it is our work of accepting Him that finally saves us.

If people are damned because they did not do something to make Christ's sacrifice applicable to themselves, then isn't that failure a sin? And if it is a sin that we can be damned for, then Christ must not have paid for it. That brings us back to your original statement that Christ died for everyone's sins and forces us to modify it to say that Christ died for everyone's sins except one.

Of course, that is a problem, too, because I may reject Christ a thousand times and then come to faith or I may reject him a thousand times and then die in unbelief. Were my first one thousand rejections paid for, but not the last one? Or does my repenting of my rejection make me acceptable without that sin being paid for? (In which case we are able to enter heaven with our sins.)

Surely, if we reject the notion that Christ died for all of the sins of those who will be with Him in heaven, and no others, then we must chase our tails in logical circles.

"If we have to do something to make Jesus' payment apply to us, then Jesus secured the salvation of no one, but only made it possible, and it is our work of accepting Him that finally saves us."

I almost agree, but I would be inclined to leave out 'work of' here.

Just to be specific about the other side, lets look at: "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." (Is 66:24)

Their act of rebellion is in the past, but their nature, which is loathsome, continues. This is the exact reverse of "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him.... those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son."

Salvation or damnation is not a result of our actions, because they have been atoned for, and were a direct result of God's will in the first place anyway (e.i. no free will). Salvation is a result of the love and faith in our souls that God saw in us even before the foundation.

It's so nice to see someone saying exactly the same thing I say but doing so in a very different way, with an emphasis on things I wouldn't think to mention and some ways of putting things that I wouldn't have thought about but really come out much clearer.

Incidentally, for those worrying about the Matt 18/II Peter 3 issue (the statement originally comes from Ezekial 18, by the way), I've dealt with that in my previous post, one I think David is in complete agreement with.

The problem I have with limited atonement is that it seems to belie the apparently open invitation to accept salvation given throughout scripture.

One of my favorite passages, for example, is Rev. 22:17: "The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!' And let him who hears say, 'Come!' Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life."

Passages like this suggest (in fact this one plainly states) that "whoever wishes" can accept the gift of salvation. If the atonement is limited to the elect, this seems to be a false offer, which would make God a liar.

Now, I know you can dance around this -- only those who are among the elect will desire ("wish") to recieve the gift, or something like that. But that seems, again, to slice the salami too thin. Passages like this imply that this is a real offer, open to all. Limited atonement seems to me to imply that the offer is open only to some, and thus isn't a real offer.

BTW, as to the "Esau have I hated" passage: I heard a sermon recently explaining that the Hebrew translated "loved" and "hated" in that passage actually is better translated "favored" and "disfavored," with specific reference to the covenant blessings promised to Abraham and his descendants. I don't have time (or really skill) to check the Hebrew, but it sounds plausible to me.

The topic of limited atonement is addressed specifically in John 10. In verse three we read That "the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out."

This is a specific group of people..that are known as sheep. These sheep recognize his voice follow him because they know his voice. yet Jesus makes the claim that he lays his life for the sheep! verse 11,
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

The real question any one should ask is every individual considered sheep? The answer is explained more then once in the text. First of all sheep recognize the Lords voice. Second they follow the good shepherd..Third the sheep who listen to the voice of Jesus and follow him are given eternal life by Jesus. Fourth the religous leaders as explained in verse 26 WERE NOT CONSIDERED SHEEP. "The reason you do not believe because you are not my sheep"!

All this after a lengthy explanation of Jesus giving his life for the sheep.

It seems clear that both Arminians and Calvanists believe that God values something more than he desires that all be saved - if in fact, all are not saved. The Arminian says that God values human choice or free will above his desire to save everyone. The Calvinist believes that God values His Glory above his desire that all be saved. We may disagree on this point, but it is clear that both sides see God as having an ultimate desire beyond the saving of all men.

And, as far as "limited atonement," I don't see how we can escape it unless we accept the ideas of "openness theology." No matter how you frame the issue, in the end, God knows who will be saved and who will not be - for He knows the end from the beginning. And if He knows that someone "will not" come to Christ, in what sense did Christ die for them? Especially when there is language in places that Men are judged according to their works/deeds done in the flesh. To me, that is clear that Christ's death did not atone for their sins - for no one can stand before God on the basis of their works. I have begun recently to greatly appreciate the "general benefits" of the mercies of God that Christ's death secured for all men. But every day that the unsaved breathe God's air and turn away from his offer of forgiveness, they heap more judgment on themselves in light of his mercy. God's offer of salvation to all is genuine, but none will come to Him, unless he first does not replace their heart of stone with a heart of flesh.

Why doesn't he do this for everyone?
I heard it put more colloquially as "Son, if I could have done it any other way and accomplish all that I want to accomplish, I would have."
More formally perhaps, that God wills that his entire nature be shown - including his wrath. And some objects are made for this purpose. I don't particularly like this, but I don't get a vote. God does what he does, and we do our best to figure out what he has revealed about himself through his word.

This is a hard truth, but I am convinced that it is, in the end, a Truth.

I see that many on here are speaking of the Gospel as an offer...where do you see the word OFFER in the bible? I know, I know...neither is Trinity, or Limited Atonement, etc..but the word Offer comes from the Westminster Confessions and in Latin, the word "offerre" meant to PResent...

The Canons of Dordt state: "It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ, offered therein, ..." (3/4.9)

These documents say that Christ is offered in the gospel and that God freely offers salvation by Christ to sinners. Is this akin to the "free offer" of today? One must delve into the meaning of the word "offer" and how it was used during these times. The word comes from the Latin word offerre that means "to bear," "to bring," "to present." This is how the word was used in the days of the Canons and the Westminster Confession. Christ is presented in the gospel. Life and salvation by Jesus Christ is freely presented to sinners. In this sense, the "free offer" is orthodox. The gospel is to be preached freely to all without exception, and all without exception are commanded to repent and believe the gospel.

At its most basic, "free offer" preaching is a preaching of salvation conditioned on the sinner, while true gospel preaching is a preaching of salvation conditioned on Christ. Of course, the "free offer" advocates will insist that they are preaching salvation conditioned on Christ, just as the Arminians will insist this. But it is impossible to preach the "free offer" without preaching salvation conditioned on the sinner.

The preaching of the true gospel does not offer a salvation to sinners if the sinners would only do their part. The preaching of the true gospel is an unconditional promise of salvation that is conditioned on the work of Christ alone. God's covenant of grace is not a conditional covenant. It is a sure and certain covenant that ensures the salvation of all whom God gave to Christ. It is based on the finished, efficacious work of Christ. God is not waiting for the sinner to respond before He can do His saving work. God saves unconditionally. And when He saves His people, He causes them to believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on Christ and to repent of ever thinking that salvation was conditioned on themselves.
Man is 'commanded' to repent and to believe...this is not an offer...we are not "hawking" Jesus out here..

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

If a person is condemned for not believing, what is it a person is supposed to believe that if he doesn't believe he is condemned. The elect are saved by believing that Christ died for them. If Christ did not die for the nonelect how can the nonelect be condemned for not believing that Christ died for them if in fact He did not die for them? Are they condemned for not believing a lie(that Christ died for them)?

Just what exactly is a person supposed to believe that will in effect save them and if they don't believe will condemn them?